Stakeholder analysis

European Journal of Marketing Marketing stakeholder analysis: Branding the Brisbane Goodwill Games Bill Merrilees Don Getz Danny O'Brien

Article information:

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

To cite this document: Bill Merrilees Don Getz Danny O'Brien, (2005),"Marketing stakeholder analysis", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Iss 9/10 pp. 1060 - 1077 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560510610725 Downloaded on: 19 January 2015, At: 05:45 (PT) References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4876 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Domingo Ribeiro Soriano, Emerson Wagner Mainardes, Helena Alves, Mário Raposo, (2012),"A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships", Management Decision, Vol. 50 Iss 10 pp.

1861-1879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211279648 Adrian Payne, David Ballantyne, Martin Christopher, (2005),"A stakeholder approach to relationship marketing strategy: The development and use of the “six markets” model", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Iss 7/8 pp. 855-871 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560510601806 Michael Jay Polonsky, Brian Murphy, Paul Maguiness, Chris Pescott, Soren Wislang, Jingwu Ma, Rongmei Wang, (2005),"Stakeholder perceptions presage holistic stakeholder relationship marketing performance", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Iss 9/10 pp. 1049-1059 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560510610716

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 284447 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

EJM 39,9/10

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Marketing stakeholder analysis Branding the Brisbane Goodwill Games Bill Merrilees Griffith Business School, Gold Coast, Australia

1060

Don Getz University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, and

Danny O’Brien Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

Griffith Business School, Gold Coast, Australia Abstract Purpose – The paper aims to explore a major issue in international marketing: how to build a global brand in a way that makes a strong local connection.

Design/methodology/approach – Using qualitative research methods on a single case, the Brisbane Goodwill Games, the processes used in the staging of this major sport event are analyzed. In particular, the stakeholder relations employed by the marketing department of the Goodwill Games Organization are investigated and a process model is developed that explains how a global brand can be built locally.

Findings – A major outcome of the paper is a revision to the four-step Freeman process to make it more proactive; and three major principles for effective stakeholder management are articulated. The findings demonstrate that stakeholder analysis and management can be used to build more effective event brands. Stakeholder theory is also proposed as an appropriate and possibly stronger method of building inter-organizational linkages than alternatives such as network theory.

Originality/value – Previous literature has generally dealt with the global brand issue in terms of the standardization versus adaptation debate, and the extent to which the marketing mix should be adapted to meet local needs in foreign countries. This research provides a unique extension to this literature by demonstrating how the brand itself needs to be modified to meet local needs.

Keywords Brands, International marketing, Stakeholder analysis, Research Paper type Case study

Introduction The call for papers emphasizes marketing stakeholder relationships. We pursue this topic in the context of a case study of the marketing and branding activities of the Brisbane 2001 Goodwill Games. One of the implications of this marketing approach is that it enables more attention to be given to primary rather than secondary stakeholders (as defined by Clarkson (1995)). The context of building a global brand, locally for a major sporting event, is an important topic in itself, as the relevant theory for such a situation has not previously been well articulated. However the particular marketing and branding of the Brisbane Goodwill Games is also a context enabling us to better understand inter-organizational linkages. It will be argued that stakeholder theory is a powerful way of building inter-organizational linkages, beyond the more European Journal of Marketing Vol. 39 No. 9/10, 2005 pp. 1060-1077 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090560510610725

Within the Goodwill Games organization we are indebted to the co-operation of the Marketing Manager (Mr Philip Whittaker) and the Assistant Marketing Manager (Ms Merrilee Barnes) and other Games staff and other stakeholders.

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

traditional network approach (an excellent overview of which is given in Wilkinson (2001)). Thus the paper has two broad aims. First, to demonstrate that stakeholder analysis and management can be used to build more effective event brands. Second, to demonstrate that stakeholder theory provides an alternative and possibly stronger method of building inter-organizational linkages than alternatives such as network theory.

We begin by briefly outlining the scope of the brand concept for the Goodwill Games. Next, we elaborate on the notion that the global brand needs to be built at a local level. The event management literature is briefly reviewed. The rationale for the stakeholder approach is explained, followed by a definition of what is a stakeholder.

Next, the Freeman stakeholder model is discussed and is followed by a review of other perspectives on stakeholder analysis. The research design is presented, followed by the case research results, first, regarding the brand development process and, second, regarding the nature and role of stakeholder relations. Implications of the results for stakeholder theory are presented.

The global brand concept of the Goodwill Games We begin by articulating the global brand concept in the case at hand. The Goodwill Games is a global concept developed by Ted Turner, Vice Chairman of Time Warner Inc. It was born out of the Olympic boycotts of 1980 and 1984 and was designed to promote goodwill among the nations of the world. This is the philosophical underpinning of the Games. The brand concept also has additional defining features.

The Games are presented as an e´lite, international, multi-sport event. It is run as a finals-only format and brings together the world’s top eight athletes in each event run.

Note that the research was conducted in 2001. In 2002 the Goodwill Games were suspended, but the case study remains intact as a true and accurate account of what, at the time, was a periodic major sports event. The lessons from the case study are readily applicable to other major sporting events and to other marketing alliances that could benefit from a sounder stakeholder framework.

Building the global brand, locally Like most brands, the Goodwill Games represent a unique configuration of ideas and propositions. For those who have attended previous games or helped build the brand, the brand meaning is fairly clear. However, for the community, the particular brand may not be clear. Certainly there are some global brands, like the Olympic Games, which have a high level of awareness and understanding in a large number of countries. Lesser events, like the Goodwill Games, are not in this category. The challenge for the event organizers then was to build the brand image in the minds of the local community; that is, the communities of Brisbane, Queensland, and the rest of Australia. The Brisbane base was always expected to be the main source of spectators for the events, followed in descending order by the rest of Queensland, other parts of Australia and the rest of the world.

To achieve this ultimate brand image in the minds of the audience, the Goodwill Games organizers, like any brand owner, had to develop the brand identity internally (see Kapferer, 1997, pp. 94-95). Thus, the context of this paper was to analyze how the local organizers went about building a global brand, locally. The case is particularly interesting because the Goodwill Games is essentially a virtual company, which

Marketing stakeholder analysis 1061

EJM 39,9/10

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

1062

recreated itself every four years to run the Games. There is a strong emphasis on the local team to take the running with respect to most organizational matters, both marketing and operational. Thus we have a situation where the local elements in building the brand are inherently strong. It is not a case of a global company forcing a standardized solution on its foreign branches, but rather a polar situation where the local implementation offers an exemplary best practice model. For these reasons, we hope and believe that the case research in this paper will provide insight in a more generalizable way to the implementation of a global brand program.

This is an appropriate point to make explicit a key assumption of our work. We do not see the task of building a global brand locally as simply taking a global brand and making a small number of minor, “culturally-correct”, fine-tuning adjustments to that brand. It is not simply a matter of changing the color scheme or the tone of the advertisements. Rather, a known global brand was inherited, but to a large extent the local organizing team needed to rebuild or reposition the brand so as to make a strong connection with the local communities. The rebuilding process needed to preserve the core identity and philosophy of the global brand, but build in additional elements that the local community could relate to.

Event management and sponsorship The case research in this paper drew on established event management principles (Getz, 1997). It is clear from the literature that a key feature of event management is how to bring together the disparate parties needed to organize an event. This point is expanded in the next section, where we articulate the rationale for a stakeholder approach to event branding and marketing. A major part of event management is the funding question, which introduces the key role of sponsorship. Skinner and Rukavina (2003) speak from experience in saying that sponsors are no longer content with signage and on-site hospitality. Now sponsors want business-to-business marketing opportunities and measured results of their return on investment. More recently, web site sponsorship partners are becoming common and technology will continue to have impacts on event marketing.

Meenaghan (2001) summarized key theoretical considerations for sponsors who want to maximize their effectiveness. The first major consideration is that consumer goodwill can be earned (and lost) through sponsorship, and it is goodwill that separates sponsorship from mere advertising. The level of involvement that consumers have in an activity or event in large part determines their response to the sponsors, so the ideal sponsorship reaches those who are emotionally involved with the event. Sponsorship of events can result in a transfer of image (through co-branding), and in part, this is determined by the consumer’s perception of the fit between sponsor and event.

Notwithstanding the benefits, D’Alesssandro (2001) gives telling examples of why these co-branding benefits do not always materialize.

Rationale for a stakeholder approach to event branding and marketing Institutional and resource-dependence theorists would suggest that effective strategic management of inter-organizational linkages is integral to the survival of any organization (Stern, 1979; Baum and Oliver, 1991; Scott et al., 1996). Several researchers, for example, Stern (1979), Baum and Oliver (1991), and Kraatz (1998), have discussed the enhanced stability and significant advantages that the successful

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

maintenance of inter-organizational linkages confers on organizations, particularly during periods of increased competition. In fact, Stern (1979) suggested that, by analyzing and describing the structures and processes that sustain these linkages, “power relationships, resource mobilization, and coalition formation may be examined” (Stern, 1979, p. 242). Moreover, Baum and Oliver (1991), and O’Neill et al. (1998) highlighted the role of institutional linkages in conferring social support on an organization during periods of organizational change. This crucial source of social capital enhances the ability of organizations to achieve strategic goals (Baum and Oliver, 1991; O’Neill et al., 1998).

Kraatz (1998) made the point that consortia facilitate communication by establishing personal relationships between organizational leaders that offer opportunities for regular, informal interaction. Therefore, the strategic management of inter-organizational ties is particularly valuable. Through such ties, the creation of high-capacity information links engenders a motivation for information sharing and organizational learning (Kraatz, 1998). Strategically, due to the ephemeral nature of a hallmark sport event, such as the Brisbane 2001 Goodwill Games, organizers’ rational boundaries are tightly restricted, and the margin for error drastically reduced. This study extends the extant literature by focusing on the unique problems and issues associated with creating, maintaining and strategically managing inter-organizational linkages in this high-pressure environment. A stakeholder model is seen as particularly useful in articulating inter-organizational linkages and has the potential to go beyond traditional network theory.

As we have shown, the case provides a clear link to the resource-based approach to the firm and to resource dependency. Most of the primary stakeholders for any event are those that provide tangible and intangible resources or assist in marketing as partners. There is also an issue of mutual dependency since the tourism agencies in particular require events to fulfill their mandate, especially in Queensland with the Queensland Events Corporation (QEC). Some of the stakeholders with the Goodwill Games had pre-existing linkages that made the job easier for the Games to get started with building relationships. In other words, they were able to tap into the events-oriented network.

The special issue call for papers emphasizes marketing stakeholder relationships and has the potential to extend our understanding of important (primary) inter-organizational linkages. We can therefore extend the literature in two respects.

First, we can extend the theory of inter-organizational linkages from network theory to stakeholder theory. Second, we can extend stakeholder theory from an emphasis on secondary stakeholders to primary stakeholders (discussed below). Although the Goodwill Games is an ideal case study to study these new theories, the findings potentially extend to all special events, arts and sport, and indeed to most marketing ventures, activities or alliances.

Stakeholder definition There is no universal definition of stakeholders. Carroll’s (1993) definition highlights the aspects of interdependency and affecting/being affected by the organization. Thus stakeholders are “groups or individuals with whom the organization interacts or has interdependencies” and “any individual or group who can affect or is affected by the actions, decisions, policies, practices or goals of the organization”. Other scholars have

Marketing stakeholder analysis 1063

EJM 39,9/10

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

1064

highlighted the rights/interests of the stakeholder in the organization (Clarkson and Deck, 1993; Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Savage et al., 1991). We favor combining these three salient features, namely: (1) interdependency; (2) affecting/being affected by the organization; and (3) the sense of an interest or right in the organization.

At a more detailed level, Clarkson (1995) classifies stakeholders into primary and secondary. Primary stakeholders have high levels of interactivity and are vital for the survival of the organization. Secondary stakeholders affect or are affected by the organization, but are generally not engaged in transactions with the organization and are not essential for its survival. The Clarkson classification seems especially suited to understanding marketing stakeholders relations, with most key commercial partners/networks satisfying the primary stakeholder definition. Thus in the Goodwill Games context, the primary stakeholders include international and national TV networks, major commercial private sponsors, government sponsors, merchandisers and Ticketek, the ticketing agency. These are all commercial entities.

Secondary stakeholders are much less visible, though the fraternities of tourism, local development and sporting bodies are represented indirectly through the State government arm.

The Freeman stakeholder model Freeman (1984) is recognized as the classic reference on stakeholder theory. His approach interprets stakeholder management as the mechanism by which the voices of stakeholders and their links with the core or lead organization are firstly recognized and then incorporated into the strategic planning process. A four-step stakeholder management process was proposed. The initial step is to identify relevant stakeholders. Second, the nature, scope and importance of the stakeholder connection are determined. Thirdly, an analysis is made to ascertain how effectively the needs or expectations of each group are currently being met by the lead organization. Fourth, there is a presumption that the unmet needs of stakeholder groups will be addressed through modification of the lead organization’s plans, policies and activities. Of course, this final step may not be completely successful and the company can be judged accordingly (Nasi et al., 1997).

Much of the existing literature seems to have been mainly concerned with secondary stakeholder groups. We argue below that the Freeman model needs to be modified to be able to deal with primary stakeholders. This will entail a re-orientation of stakeholder analysis from one of judging the social responsibility of organizations, with an expectation that many organizations fall short of a social standard, to that of a more proactive tool in which organizations have a potentially strong inclination to enhance stakeholder relations in order to optimize organizational performance. We should also acknowledge the distinction between external and internal (such as staff) stakeholders (Freeman, 1984). Other departments or units, other than the marketing unit, in the Goodwill Games Organization, were treated as close, but external stakeholders. Internal issues such as staffing and culture were explicitly considered in a number of the interviews and were found to be an important part of the total approach to stakeholder relationship marketing and management.

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

Further perspectives on stakeholder analysis Wolfe and Putler (2002) contend that the stakeholder approach facilitates our understanding of increasingly unpredictable environments, thereby enhancing our ability to actually manage within these environments. Since Freeman’s (1984) seminal work, the stakeholder approach has indeed become a popular heuristic that has facilitated our understanding of strategic management development. However, despite promising leads, a degree of ambiguity continues to be debated in stakeholder theory discussions. For example, Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 853), argued that stakeholder theory offers: . . . a maddening variety of signals on how questions of stakeholder identification might be answered.

These authors explored the notion of who and what really counts in stakeholder identification and salience. Their resultant eight-part typology of stakeholders was based on the power, legitimacy, and urgency of stakeholders’ respective claims on the firm. Building on this typology, Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed a theory of stakeholder salience to explain how managers prioritize stakeholder relationships. Another useful study that highlights the political and conflict aspects of stakeholder relations is Larson and Wikstrom (2001).

Polonsky (1995) was also concerned with the issue of stakeholder salience and the prioritization of stakeholder relationships. He also suggested that stakeholder theory, as discussed in the management literature, has important implications for marketers.

Polonsky (1995) pointed out that, since the development of modern marketing philosophy, stakeholder theory has been an implicit core component of marketing theory, and he implored marketers to further develop the use of the stakeholder approach in marketing strategy. In his work on environmental alliances and strategic bridging, Polonsky (2001, p. 45) attempted to do just that. He pointed out that: . . . the existing literature has failed to consider the ways in which firms form relationships with stakeholders or integrate them into strategy development.

He contended that, rather than letting alliances simply “emerge,” the strategic selection of stakeholders with whom to initiate and foster alliances can facilitate leveraging opportunities that can result in mutual benefits to both alliance partners. The alliance acts as a “bridge” that facilitates interaction with further otherwise “unconnected” stakeholder firms (Polonsky, 2001). For example, Mendleson and Polonsky (1995) demonstrated how strategic alliance building between a corporate firm and an environmental group helped facilitate the achievement of strategic objectives for both partners. By incorporating stakeholder analysis into their respective strategic development processes, the firm achieved increased community credibility and access to different market segments, while the environmental group was provided with opportunities to interact with other businesses that broadened its capability to achieve wider environmental change.

Another way of interpreting the Polonsky strategic approach is a greater emphasis on the lead organization being more proactive in terms of tapping into stakeholder input. The level of proactivity was tested as one component of our interviews.

Notwithstanding, there is evidence that even award-winning organizations fail to

Marketing stakeholder analysis 1065

EJM 39,9/10

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

1066

actively include stakeholders with vital expertise in new product development processes (Polonsky and Ottman, 1998).

Research design The basic research design for this study is a qualitative, case-research method. A single case design has been adopted, though there are multiple strata of decision-makers interviewed. The single case chosen is that of the Brisbane Goodwill Games marketing and branding activities, with the marketing department as the focal group. The interviews took place in the second half of 2001 and covered the pre-opening, duration and post-duration of the Games. A central part of the case study was the need to conduct interviews of the core organization, the Goodwill Games Organization. Given the emphasis on marketing stakeholder relationships the main internal unit was the marketing department and so it, rather than operations or the CEO unit, was considered to be the core for the purpose of the research. Additional groups/units interviewed were the public relations department of the Goodwill Games (manager), Ticketek, sponsors and a State tourism agency. A process-based qualitative research design was used. This required the authors to frame the questions around the processes used, including the events, decisions and sequences made by the relevant decision-maker. In this sense the research is grounded in the behaviors and motives of the Goodwill Games. A priori theory was used to some extent, making our approach a modified grounded theory framework. However the pre-existing theory was limited, confined to general branding theory, general event management theory and general stakeholder theory. To further assist the interviews, a protocol was used, outlining the key questions and topics. In three interviews there was an intention of getting the interviewee to draw a stakeholder map, so the interviewer provided A3 paper and colored pens.

Case research results: brand development Interviewing the manager and the assistant manager of the marketing department as well as observing copies of the advertisements and public documents provided insight into how professional and thorough the marketing and branding process was designed and implemented. This approach can be illustrated by working through the actual brand development process used by the Goodwill Games marketing group. The critical steps in this brand building process included: (1) A strong planning approach to brand development, with three clear phases; brand building/awareness; call to action; excitement/countdown.

(2) A strong initial global brand concept.

(3) A broad appeal to a sports-loving nation (market relevance).

(4) The ability to translate the brand concept with a clear, consistent message (one sight, one sound, one sell approach); this might be seen as the brand sub-text.

(5) Such a translation was done in a such a way as to appeal to the local communities.

(6) Maintaining consistency in the lead up, but with different nuances in each of the three phases (brand building/awareness; call to action; excitement/countdown).

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

(7) Managing the consistency in various ways, including teamwork, scripts, briefings and control of copy.

(8) An underlying stakeholder framework.

First, a strong planning approach was formed from the outset. Although a lot of the public activity started in April 2001, the previous 12 months had been quite active, with a systematic approach to getting sponsors signed on. Three levels of sponsorship were offered (namely partner, supporter or provider), with considerable research and planning going into each of these deal-making meetings, to ensure that the Goodwill Games were well informed about the background and needs of potential sponsors.

Three clear phases were identified, starting with brand building and awareness, followed by a call to action (that is, getting consumers to buy a ticket in an orderly way), culminating in the final countdown, an adrenalin rush designed to capture last minute sales.

Second, to a large extent the global brand was a given, namely to present an e´lite, international multi-sport event, run in a finals-only format. Even the logo was inherited, in place when the marketing manager came on board. Third, having a strong brand concept is one thing, but translating that concept into effective media messages is another. A useful marketing communication strategy in the case of the Goodwill Games was the “one sight, one sound, one sell approach”. This greatly assisted in the unification and consistency of the messaging: The idea for this integrated marketing approach came from a previous contact/employer that I was involved in. The whole idea is that you only have a limited budget, so you have to reinforce the messages (Marketing Manager).

Similarly the public relations unit was also integrated into the campaign: They had access to all the graphics and manuals, so a lot of their promotions used the same imagery, like the star burst (a design element) and the fonts and everything, through their promotions (Assistant Marketing Manager).

Although it is important to have a strong global concept, we have explained earlier that it was necessary to provide a local adaptation of the brand. The logo was the starting point for the design. Additional elements were added to reflect a local, Australian content, through the: . . . star burst design element, that had an Aboriginal influence, as well as the running man identifying sport, where the colours had an earthy look. There was also a water connection, making it very Australian (Assistant Marketing Manager).

An additional measure of adding local content was to push the slogan: “Gods of Sport in our own backyard”. In other words, there was the presence of champions in our own small part of the world. “Own backyard” is part of the Australian vernacular, though there was some debate about whether this was meant to apply to just South East Queensland or the whole of Australia.

Careful attention was given to maintaining consistency in the messages and image of the brand throughout the Games build-up and duration. Notwithstanding, it was necessary to change some of the nuances in different phases of the project. For example, in the brand awareness phase, additional effort was placed on public relations:

Marketing stakeholder analysis 1067

EJM 39,9/10

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

1068

Advertising worked very closely with media and PR to build the brand. You can only build the brand so much with advertising. Ultimately you need PR to get real comprehension; that was the thing we really lacked, people did not really understand what the product was (Marketing Manager).

Consistency had to be managed in various ways, including control methods such as scripts, briefings and copy, as well as a supportive culture. Attention to detail was the norm. Teamwork was important. It was necessary to work hard over a relatively short to medium time period: I guess you lead from the top. I didn’t ask anything of them that I wouldn’t do myself.. We were putting in hours; we were there. I think the culture really breeds within itself, showing the direction, showing the leadership. You don’t have to say to them to stay until 12 o’clock.

They are going to anyway because they can see the commitment from the top” (Marketing Manager).

Rituals were also important: It was good as we all had a sense of humor. There was a lot going on, so it was helpful to be light-hearted. We would often make jokes about our predicament because we were so under-resourced. Other divisions did not understand why we were working so late. The need to give constant attention to sponsors was a big factor in this difference across departments (Assistant Marketing Manager).

A stakeholder relationship framework underpinned the brand development process.

This is elaborated in the next section. However it is worth noting that recent research in marketing has begun to highlight the role of relationships as a strong basis for building strong brands (Pearson, 1996; Fournier, 1996; Merrilees and Fry, 2002). In other words, rather than relying purely on say an advertising pull strategy, more recognition is being made to more direct, grassroots approaches, tapping into critical relationships. Despite this development, the scope of “relationship” tends to be fairly narrow, namely customer relationships. Therefore, although there is a growing literature on how relationship and direct marketing can enhance brand equity, there seems to have been little attempt to extend the scope of relationships to a broader range of stakeholders. The current case research does exactly that with respect to analyzing the branding of the Goodwill Games.

Case research results: nature and role of stakeholder relations The starting point for analyzing stakeholder relations is to identify the various stakeholders as we have discussed (Freeman, 1984). The marketing department of the Goodwill Games Organization is our core organizational unit and so we simply asked that unit (through its manager) to identify the various stakeholders. The way we did this was to get the marketing manager to draw a stakeholder map. We asked that the marketing unit itself be the center or core of the map and that the more important stakeholders be drawn closer to the center. The marketing manager drew a freehand map on a large (A3 size) piece of paper, talking us through the story as it evolved.

Figure 1 is a touched up version of the map.

Figure 1 is remarkable in a number of ways. First, many stakeholder maps tend to be fairly general or generic, following the original Freeman (1984, p. 55, Exhibit 3.1) map. In contrast, Figure 1 is more realistic and portrays the actual organizations or divisions that each stakeholder represents. Second, not only is Figure 1 more realistic,

Marketing stakeholder analysis

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

1069

Figure 1.

Stakeholder map for Brisbane goodwill games

it also seems more comprehensive and detailed compared to some maps. Third, unexpectedly, the Manager organized the map into rays or zones, including sponsors, media, travel and accommodation, merchandising, the public/consumers (starting with South East Queensland) and sales/venues. In retrospect, this method of portraying a stakeholder map enables the different facets within each group to be identified and articulated and ranked. Fourthly, at our instruction, the manager was able to draw in other key interdependencies across stakeholder groups. For example, the link between the travel firms and Tourism Queensland was highlighted. Another example was the link between the Nine Network and Ticketek. These super-imposed linkages help to “close� the map (spider-like) in terms of complex cross-relations and add further operational reality to the map. It also makes the map more dynamic than is commonly portrayed. In explaining the interdependencies the marketing manager was able to explain how the roles of some stakeholders ebbed and flowed. For example, it became clear early on that more reliance would have to be placed on private travel agencies than was originally planned. Also it was necessary to replace the main merchandiser to get a more professional player.

For all four reasons, the Figure 1 stakeholder map is remarkable. Further and more holistically, it is remarkable that anyone could sit down and calmly and methodically draw such a detailed and comprehensive map without notice. It suggests to the authors

EJM 39,9/10

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

1070

that the logic and power of stakeholder thinking had been conceptualized and internalized by the marketing manager, an interpretation accepted by the manager.

Notwithstanding, the manager had not realized how elaborate the map would become, suggesting that companies could benefit by an early drawing and use of complex stakeholder maps.

We can illustrate some of the stakeholder relations with the following analytical basis. Drawing on the three-component definition of a stakeholder that we propose, each stakeholder can be analyzed in terms of the interaction/interdependency with the core unit, clarifying the affect/being affected by and the extent to which the stakeholder has an interest/right in the core organization. We can add a fourth component, following Polonsky (2001), namely how strategic/proactive is the stakeholder relationship? A fifth component, following Kraatz (1998), is the potential importance of person-to-person linkages and contacts. This was also tested in the interviews.

We might start with sponsors because we have already discussed them at some length. The sponsorship ray was the first one drawn in Figure 1, reflecting its overall importance to the core organization. The media partners and the sponsors were the two dominant sources of funding for the Games. The interdependency between the sponsors and the core organization was clearly financial and the details of media messages. The interaction was clearly two-way with scope for each party to affect the other. For example, there was an indication that both the health company major sponsor (MBA) and the financial institution major sponsor (Suncorp Metway) did advance their own brands through the Goodwill Games sponsorship. In the case of the first sponsor, they could progress their positioning on wellness rather than sickness.

These claims were checked and supported by interviewing the sponsors. A media communications officer in the Public Affairs Unit of Suncorp Metway was interviewed.

She was able to produce her own stakeholder map, with Games liaison connections on one ray, internal Suncorp Metway marketing (including sponsorship) units on another ray and media groups (mainly different newspapers and a radio station) on the third ray. It was felt that: The Goodwill Games team gave great support and service to Suncorp Metway’s media team (Media Communications Officer, Major Sponsor).

The notion of the sponsors having “rights� in the core organization comes naturally with sponsorship rights. The strategic/proactive nature of the relationship with the sponsors was two-way, as we have just explained, and goes right back to the careful way in which major sponsors were selected. Thereafter, there was close and frequent communication between the core organization and the sponsors, reflected in the quote above regards humor and long hours of work. The person-to-person links were strong.

A designated staff person in the marketing department was assigned to a designated sponsor, with the latter having the same contact person. This was one of many situations that supported the Kraatz (1998) hypothesis that person-to-person contacts were important.

The marketing manager had identified the public relations unit as being part of a co-operative team, working hand in hand with the marketing department. The cross-department cooperation thesis was tested through interviewing the Goodwill Games media and public relations manager:

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

The role of the PR unit was to support the marketing initiatives through good publicity to get across the marketing message by generating good news stories and events. As well, the job was to manage negative publicity, such as e´lite athletes not coming (Media and Public Relations Manager).

Co-operation seemed to prevail in all areas, including the links between the PR unit and marketing, the CEO’s unit, the media and the other government units. There were weekly reviews between the PR manager and the CEO of the Games Organization. The stakeholder map drawn by the PR manager by definition had PR as the core unit.

Three main rays were drawn; with the media, government departments (including a close role and support from the Premier himself) and other Games units and athletes.

So although the center of the universe was different, the perception of the main stakeholders was broadly the same. One understandable nuance was more attention to government departments, compared to the marketing department having more attention to sales. Another similarity was the importance of internal (staff) relationships: Teamwork and internal culture were seen as important from the start and addressed with careful recruitment and selection. The group had a tradition of drinks on Fridays after work that has continued even as operations wound down. I have an open door policy for all staff to discuss anything about their work (Media and Public Relations Manager).

Ticketek was an important stakeholder. The interaction seems fairly obvious, with Ticketek getting a commission on sales. However the relationship was much deeper than this. Ticketek data was used carefully to monitor the volume and pattern of sales.

A lot of the special deals required close collaboration with Ticketek and their data was helpful to evaluate the effectiveness of these special promotions. The figure skating, basketball and athletics special deals seemed to work well. However some sports, such as women’s weightlifting and the men’s boxing, were destined to have a limited response and not sell well. The Ticketek relationship was leveraged in other ways as well: There was a lot of direct marketing in terms of the sporting clubs. We worked with people like Ticketek and their previous buyers of world figure skating championships. We didn’t solely rely on TV advertising. We tried to get the message across every major distribution channel, including student offers and those other things. Some were peripheral, but it was trying to capitalize on every opportunity (Marketing Manager).

To validate/elaborate on some of these perspectives we interviewed the Queensland client services manager of Ticketek. The interview confirmed a number of things.

There was a close connection between Ticketek and the Nine Network, through ownership. This connection had been highlighted in the Figure 1 stakeholder map.

Ticketek was not a sponsor, but it did encourage the use of its logo on all the promotional material. There was a high recall of the Ticketek phone number. Ticketek uses a special ticketing model to manage each event: In this case, it worked very well, as the Goodwill Games supplied very good support. For example, the “maps” of the venues matched up with the actual seats. The skills of the Games staff can be credited with this, particularly those that had experience in ticket sales rather than marketing (Ticketek Client Services Manager).

Marketing stakeholder analysis 1071

EJM 39,9/10

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

1072

The person-to-person linkages were also strong. Two members of the marketing department of the Goodwill Games were attached to Ticketing and Accreditation, with occasional involvement from the marketing manager. Also involved were staff from the finance division and the event operations division (for the technical and hardware issues of setting up ticketing points). Ticketek appointed a project manager for the games sales and he dealt with many of these people. All of the Ticketek sales team were located in the one building, linked to a 13 number and having been through a familiarization session and been given briefing booklets. The quality of the Goodwill Games team impressed Ticketek sufficiently for them to try and hire one staff member when the event was over.

There were a number of government agencies stakeholders associated with tourism promotion, including Tourism Queensland and the Queensland Events Corporation (QEC). Both are state agencies responsible for developing and marketing event tourism (see Getz, 1997 for a profile of QEC). Queensland Events Corporation bid for the Games and sat on the board that oversaw government interests in the event. Tourism Queensland and QEC work very closely together. A lengthy interview was held with the destination marketing manager, Tourism Queensland. Tourism Queensland’s (TQ) mandate regarding events was to “leverage” them to gain visitors to Queensland. TQ did not perceive the Goodwill Games mandate as promoting the destination, so the relationship between the Games Organization and TQ was a bit difficult.

TQ received no additional marketing funds for the Games, although they did put forward three business plans to leverage them. This appeared to be a concern, as TQ felt it could have done a better job if it had money. TQ stressed that leveraging events for tourism requires effort and money; you cannot simply rely on media coverage or other positive effects. Specific leveraging goals have to be set up front. TQ’s efforts consisted mainly of running Games promotions into existing programs or activities, or substituting Games messages for others, for example on interstate highway billboards.

They picked up and used the Gods of Sport slogan. All in all, TQ thought the co-branding of event and destination worked well. However, they were troubled by the “your own back yard” messages. Even though most of the tickets were sold within Queensland, TQ still wanted to convey the impression that the event belonged to all of Australia.

The interview with TQ suggests that an acceptable rather than high-level satisfaction with their inclusion in the Games. The funding issue in particular was a concern, as discussed. TQ cooperated as much as possible, with their own promotions and sharing experiences, such as the Gold Coast Indy. However, TQ felt “out of the loop” on many issues, including sponsorship relations. If we define TQ as a secondary stakeholder, then its interpretation of the quality of the event relationships can be put in perspective. This is not to say that arrangements could have been better. In the discussion section below we will put forward some ideas and propositions on how secondary stakeholders can be more effectively included in a framework where primary stakeholders dominate.

The literature review does highlight the role of power and conflict with stakeholder groups. Such an emphasis probably is strongly associated with the emphasis on secondary stakeholders, such as environmental groups. This was not expected to be such a big feature in the case of the Goodwill Games and most of the interviews confirmed that. Our discussion of TQ does suggest not so much conflict, but at least a

difference of opinion about how inclusive were certain stakeholder relations. More dramatically, TV rights have the potential to be controversial. In the case of the Goodwill Games, international TV rights were not the subject of debate and negotiation, because these rights were externally controlled, by the Games American partners. In the interview we asked the marketing manager how can that be controlled from an arms length:

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

With difficulty, but we took a fairly proactive approach. We had to ensure compatibility with the international sponsors and the national sponsors. There were global, local and joint categories. Alcohol is a global category, while financial services is a local category. We inherited a contract that said which products were in which category basket. We said, let’s work together in terms of getting major sponsors on board (Marketing Manager).

When asked if the relationship between the Channel Nine network and the Games Organization had elements of conflict, the Marketing Manager answered thus: TV broadcast has power, ultimately, as you know. I guess if there wasn’t such a good working relationship there could have been conflict because we could be pitching for different direct sponsors. If we had Foster’s brewing company on board they could be doing a deal with Lion Nathan, which could affect our negotiations with Foster’s, so it was in everybody’s best interest that we work together (Marketing Manager).

The working relationship between Channel Nine and the Goodwill Games Organization was at various levels. The Goodwill Games marketing manager worked closely with the sales manager from the Nine Network, while the CEO’s of each organization also worked closely together. The same personalities remained throughout the project, consistent with the Kraatz (1998) hypothesis.

In summary, the five-prong basis for evaluating stakeholder relations has greatly assisted our analysis. For the most part there was a strong interdependency between the lead organization and each stakeholder. Finance was the main linkage, though information flows reinforced the financial interaction. A total, relationship-based commercial interdependency was formed in most cases, requiring time and trust to develop. Few of the stakeholder relations were mere transactional and this strong relationship basis even applied to the ticketing agency. Person-to-person communication emerged as powerful factor in maintaining strong stakeholder relationships. There were very few moments or cases of conflict. The latent conflict between the Games Organization and the most powerful stakeholder, the TV networks, was kept subdued through good working relationships. The other issue, which we expand below, was the organic and horizontal way management was applied.

Implications of results for stakeholder theory Much of the previous debate and research on stakeholders has emphasized secondary stakeholders, such as environmental groups and local communities, with primary stakeholders relatively neglected. There is a sense in which marketing stakeholder analysis helps to redress this imbalance in the research literature. Certainly the emphasis in the current paper has been on the primary stakeholders that have strong marketing interdependencies with the lead organization. In the case of the Goodwill Games, complex marketing networks link the event organizers, sponsors, TV networks and other media groups, government agencies, merchandisers and ticketing agency.

The study of these more complex marketing networks enables us to extend previous

Marketing stakeholder analysis 1073

EJM 39,9/10

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

1074

marketing network literature that has focused on more traditional supplier-type arrangements. Stakeholder marketing analysis has proven a useful theoretical tool to extend our understanding of less traditional marketing networks, such as sporting events.

A stakeholder approach to marketing potentially offers more robust solutions. The Goodwill Games illustrate this point, but at the same time provides a proto-type framework for other organizations to follow. The proto-type is an adaptation of the four-step Freeman model. In common with the Freeman model, steps 1 and 2 are broadly similar.

Step 1 involves identification of both primary and secondary stakeholders. Step 2 requires both grouping (for example into media, government, and other broad headings) and ranking in terms of importance. A stakeholder map is a useful tool in this respect. Figure 1 shows each ray as a grouping, for example the media ray and the proximity to the center indicates importance ranking within each ray. This particular configuration of the map may be innovative compared to others. Certainly it was a useful way of synthesizing complex patterns of relationships. Steps 3 and 4 in the Freeman framework are merged in our approach. Step 3 in the pure Freeman model concerns historic assessment of the needs of stakeholders, a phenomenon that does not exist in an ephemeral event like the Goodwill Games. Rather, the merger of steps 3 and 4 take us in the direction of proactively integrating each primary stakeholder in particular into a stronger and more unified whole event marketing. It is not the traditional case of redressing the neglected (secondary) stakeholder groups, but rather in deliberately actively managing and optimizing the interdependencies across the disparate (primary) marketing units across organizations. Another way of contrasting the Freeman model from our approach is a shift from hearing all the voices and balancing claims across (secondary) stakeholders, to that of proactive knowledge management in which the synergies of diverse but complementary marketing forces are synthesized.

Notwithstanding the emphasis given to primary stakeholders, the interests of secondary stakeholders, including tourism, local communities and equity groups, was not neglected. Indeed these groups were strongly covered through government representatives. Perhaps it was the sheer power of the government as a major sponsor and organizer that enabled the interests of these secondary groups to be subsumed and taken as given. The interests of the secondary groups were naturally incorporated into the decision-making and it was not necessary to treat them as an appendage, as is often the case when a pure private enterprise is the core organization.

Returning to the primary stakeholder approach, how exactly was proactive knowledge management achieved, as a lesson for other organizations to follow? Are there principles of stakeholder management implementation? The first principle is a tolerant organization culture that understands the importance of stakeholder roles and treats all stakeholder groups with fairness and respect. No group is considered to be an appendage, something to be somehow fitted in after the optimal solution is arrived at and therefore detracting from the optimal solution. In the case of the Goodwill Games, there was a highly developed culture that was sensitive to stakeholder needs. In part this may have been due to the extensive sponsorship experience of the marketing manager, with sponsorship sourcing and marketing an excellent learning ground for stakeholder skills. Regardless of the origin, the culture prevailing at the Goodwill

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

Games enabled a seamless integration of stakeholder group interests. Thus the first principle of stakeholder management implementation is essentially an appropriate and conducive mindset that sets the scene.

The second principle is the technical know-how to integrate the interests of different stakeholders. Again, in the Goodwill Games case, this technical know-how may have been fostered by the experience of the marketing manager and other staff in the sponsorship field. Sponsorships require delicate negotiations in which the common and different needs and aspirations of multiple parties are sorted. Even the specific sponsorship deals for the Goodwill Games adopted a more flexible approach compared to the 2000 Olympic Games, so there was much greater choice about the configuration of a sponsorship package (tickets, viewing boxes, advertising representation, and so on). Further, technical know-how includes management style. Rather than the traditional, hierarchical management model, stakeholder management requires a more horizontal, organic approach that cuts across units and external stakeholders. The core management unit needs to take on a more facilitating role rather than a command production approach. Agility is a core competency because the environment is always evolving and all of the stakeholders need to be kept up to date and to assist with changing marketing strategy.

The third principle of stakeholder management implementation involves the use of branding or branding concepts as a tool to unify stakeholders. The Goodwill Games case of course had a strong branding focus, as we have discussed. There were strong values that underpinned the Goodwill Games brand, which added a sense of goodness and virtue and ultimately unity across stakeholders. However even if the marketing activity were not necessarily primarily branding-based, it would still be possible to use branding concepts as a means of pulling stakeholders together. Related, the marketing activities can potentially be values-driven, as another way of saying brand-driven.

This leads to interdependency between stakeholder management and branding, in that stakeholder analysis is a tool to facilitating better branding of the event, but equally branding is a tool facilitating stakeholder management and integration.

Conclusions Qualitative research was used to develop a stakeholder-based theoretical model of event marketing. The case research used a single case, the Brisbane Goodwill Games, to analyze the processes used in the staging of a major sports event. The literature suggested a prevailing weak theoretical framework in the event marketing field and we developed the a priori position that a stakeholder perspective might form a suitable theoretical basis. A set of protocols was designed to facilitate the conduct of the interviews. Although some broad elements of the final theory were explicitly articulated initially, the remaining elements, the details of all of the elements and the unifying links of the theory, were grounded in the case itself. The end product is a new theory of event marketing, one with a strong stakeholder foundation. An eight-part model of the brand building process was articulated, with an emphasis on an underlying stakeholder relationship framework. This framework is relevant for any company wishing to take a global brand into a new local context.

A detailed analysis of stakeholder relations was undertaken. A five-prong basis for evaluating stakeholder relations assisted the analysis. For the most part there was a strong interdependency between the lead organization and each stakeholder. Finance

Marketing stakeholder analysis 1075

EJM 39,9/10

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

1076

was the main linkage, though information flows reinforced the financial interaction. A total, relationship-based commercial interdependency was formed in most cases, requiring time and trust to develop. Few of the stakeholder relations were mere transactional and this strong relationship basis even applied to the ticketing agency.

Person to person communication emerged as important in maintaining strong stakeholder relationships. There were few cases of conflict. The latent conflict between the Games Organization and the most powerful stakeholder, the TV networks, was kept subdued through good working relationships.

Discussion of the results led us to propose three central principles for effective stakeholder management. First, a supportive culture is important, enabling a seamless integration of stakeholder interests. Second, technical skills or competencies help, including negotiation skills and a facilitating, agile management style. Third, branding or values can be used as a tool to unify stakeholders. There are always limitations of having just one case to build a theory. However the Goodwill Games is a suitable choice to construct this research because of its big budget, high profile nature.

Notwithstanding, the emphasis of this paper has been on theory building and to a much lesser extent theory testing. Additional research, both qualitative and quantitative, is needed for theory testing.

References Baum, J. and Oliver, C. (1991), “Institutional linkages and organizational mortality”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 187-218.

Carroll, A. (1993), Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, Southwestern Publishing, Cincinnati, OH. Clarkson, M. (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.

Clarkson, M. and Deck, M. (1993), “Applying stakeholder management to the analysis and evaluation of corporate codes”, in Ludwig, D. (Ed.), Business and Society in a Changing World Order, Mellen Press, New York, NY, pp. 55-76.

D’Alesssandro, D. (2001), Brand Warfare: 10 Rules for Building the Killer Brand, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995), “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implementation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.

Fournier, S. (1996), “Understanding consumer-brand relationships”, working paper, No. 96-018, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA. Freeman, E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA. Getz, D. (1997), Event Management and Event Tourism, Cognizant Communications Corp., New York, NY. Kapferer, J. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.

Kraatz, M. (1998), “Learning by association? Inter-organizational networks and adaptation to environmental change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 621-43.

Larson, M. and Wikstrom, E. (2001), “Organizing events: managing conflict and consensus in a political market square”, Event Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 51-65.

Meenaghan, T. (2001), “Understanding sponsorship effects”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 95.

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

Mendleson, N. and Polonsky, M.J. (1995), “Using strategic alliances to develop credible green marketing”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 4-18.

Merrilees, B. and Fry, M. (2002), “Corporate branding: a framework for e-retailers”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2 and 3, pp. 211-25.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997), “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really count”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-86.

Nasi, J.S., Nasi, N., Phillips, N. and Zyglidopoulos, S. (1997), “The evolution of corporate social responsiveness”, Business Society, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 296-321.

O’Neill, H., Pouder, R. and Buccholtz, A.K. (1998), “Patterns in the diffusion of strategies across organisations: insights from the innovation diffusion literature”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 98-114.

Pearson, S. (1996), Building Brands Directly, Macmillan, London.

Polonsky, M. (1995), “A stakeholder theory approach to designing environmental marketing strategy”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 29-46.

Polonsky, M.J. (2001), “Strategic bridging within firm-environmental group alliances: opportunities and pitfalls”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 38-47.

Polonsky, M. and Ottman, J. (1998), “Stakeholders’ contribution to the green new product development process”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 533-57.

Savage, G.T., Nix, T.W., Whitehead, C.J. and Blair, J.D. (1991), “Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 51-75.

Scott, W.R., Mendel, P. and Pollack, S. (1996), “Environments and fields: studying the evolution of a field of medical care organizations”, revised version of a paper presented at Conference on Institutional Analysis, University of Arizona, Tuczon, AZ, 28-30 March.

Skinner, B. and Rukavina, V. (2003), Event Sponsorship, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Stern, R.N. (1979), “The development of an inter-organizational network: the case of intercollegiate athletics”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 242-66.

Wilkinson, I. (2001), “A history of network and channels thinking in marketing in the 20th century”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 23-52.

Wolfe, R.A. and Putler, D.S. (2002), “How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups?”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 64-80.

Further reading Meenaghan, T. (2001), “Sponsorship and advertising: a comparison of consumer perceptions”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 191.

Timur, S. and Getz, D. (2004), “Stakeholder involvement in sustainable tourism: balancing the voices”, in Theobald, W. (Ed.), Global Tourism: The Next Decade, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Marketing stakeholder analysis 1077

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by: 1. Petya Puncheva-Michelotti, Rod McColl, Andrea Vocino, Marco Michelotti. 2014. Corporate patriotism as a source of corporate reputation: a comparative multi-stakeholder approach. Journal of Strategic Marketing 22, 471-493. [CrossRef] 2. Xia Jun, Marshall S. Jiang, Sali Li, Preet S. Aulakh. 2014. Practice Standardization in Cross-Border Activities of Multinational Corporations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Management International Review . [CrossRef] 3. Natasha Cox, Richard Gyrd-Jones, Sarah Gardiner. 2014. Internal brand management of destination brands: Exploring the roles of destination management organisations and operators. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3:2, 85-95. [CrossRef] 4. Xin Jin, Karin Weber. 2013. Developing and testing a model of exhibition brand preference: The exhibitors' perspective. Tourism Management 38, 94-104. [CrossRef] 5. Andrea Lucarelli. 2012. Unraveling the complexity of “city brand equity”: a three‐dimensional framework.

Journal of Place Management and Development 5:3, 231-252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 6. Temi Abimbola, Myfanwy Trueman, Oriol Iglesias, Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller, Carmel Herington.

2012. Multiple stakeholders and multiple city brand meanings. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 1032-1047. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 7. Stefan Schmid, Thomas Kotulla. 2011. 50 years of research on international standardization and adaptation —From a systematic literature analysis to a theoretical framework. International Business Review 20:5, 491-507. [CrossRef] 8. Vassilios Ziakas, Carla A. Costa. 2011. The Use of an Event Portfolio in Regional Community and Tourism Development: Creating Synergy between Sport and Cultural Events. Journal of Sport & Tourism 16:2, 149-175. [CrossRef] 9. Aaron Tkaczynski, Sharyn R. Rundle-Thiele. 2011. Event segmentation: A review and research agenda.

Tourism Management 32:2, 426-434. [CrossRef] 10. Sacha Reid. 2011. Event stakeholder management: developing sustainable rural event practices.

International Journal of Event and Festival Management 2:1, 20-36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 11. Graham Hankinson. 2010. Place branding research: A cross-disciplinary agenda and the views of practitioners. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6:4, 300-315. [CrossRef] 12. Kalliopi (Popi) Sotiriadou. 2009. The Australian sport system and its stakeholders: development of cooperative relationships. Sport in Society 12:7, 842-860. [CrossRef] 13. Enrique Bigné Alcañiz, Alejandro Alvarado Herrera, Rafael Currás Pérez. 2009. Epistemological evolution of corporate social responsibility in marketing. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 6:1, 35-50. [CrossRef] 14. Becca Leopkey, Milena M. Parent. 2009. Risk Management Issues in Large-scale Sporting Events: a Stakeholder Perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly 9:2, 187-208. [CrossRef] 15. Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan. 2009. Strategic branding of destinations: a framework. European Journal of Marketing 43:5/6, 611-629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 16. Olivia Wagner, Mike Peters. 2009. Can association methods reveal the effects of internal branding on tourism destination stakeholders?. Journal of Place Management and Development 2:1, 52-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY At 05:45 19 January 2015 (PT)

17. Kristine Toohey. 2008. The Sydney Olympics: Striving for Legacies – Overcoming Short-Term Disappointments and Long-Term Deficiencies. The International Journal of the History of Sport 25:14, 1953-1971. [CrossRef] 18. Antonella Capriello, Giovanni Fraquelli. 2008. Market-Driven Management in Community Events.

Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management :2. . [CrossRef] 19. John Ensor, Martin Robertson, Jane Ali-Knight. 2007. The dynamics of successful events – the experts' perspective. Managing Leisure 12:2-3, 223-235. [CrossRef] 20. Gillian Sullivan Mort, Jay Weerawardena, Brett Williamson. 2007. Branding in the Non-profit Context: The Case of Surf Life Saving Australia. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 15:2, 108-119. [CrossRef] 21. Lena Mossberg, Donald Getz. 2006. Stakeholder Influences on the Ownership and Management of Festival Brands. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 6:4, 308-326. [CrossRef] 22. Danny O’Brien, Sarah Gardiner. 2006. Creating Sustainable Mega Event Impacts: Networking and Relationship Development through Pre-Event Training. Sport Management Review 9:1, 25-47. [CrossRef]